Amendment 7Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Public funds for water lines
Explain it like I'm 5
Some drinking-water pipes on private property may contain harmful materials such as lead. This would let public money help find and replace those pipes, like fixing the whole hose instead of only the part under the street.
Yes vote
Public entities may use public funds to identify, inventory, remove, or replace drinking-water service lines affected by hazardous materials on customers' property.
No vote
Existing constitutional limits on using public money for this work on private property remain in place.
The question to ask yourself
Should public money be allowed to repair hazardous water lines on private property when the work protects public health?
The case for
- Allows complete replacement of hazardous lines, including the private portion.
- Can help protect children and families from lead exposure.
- May help utilities use available federal water-infrastructure funding.
Backed by: New Orleans city officials, Louisiana REALTORS®
The case against
- Uses public money for infrastructure on privately owned property.
- The amendment authorizes spending without setting a statewide funding limit.
- Smaller utilities could face pressure if outside funding is insufficient.
Opposed by: No organized opposition found
- Money
- The amendment authorizes public spending but does not appropriate money, and the statewide cost is not estimated.
- Don't be misled
- It does not automatically require every utility to replace every line or provide money by itself; it permits specified public spending.